I guess this Duck Dynasty thing is a big deal...

Here's a story sure to make moron joe's pointy little head spin:

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014/01/02/duck-dynasty-releases-own-line-of-guns/

 

Bullshit. You chose to focus on one aspect of one word in that statement. You've blatantly misrepresented their position to further your rhetorical agenda. Instead of citing examples of the network actually promoting the "immoral and unhealthy lifestyle of the LBGT community" to the youth of America, you blandly repeat your feeble, unsupported allegation. It appears that you have nothing of substance to present on this topic.

Again, instead of substance, you blow hot air. Nobody is forcing parents to ignore their role as guides and protectors of their children, including supervising what the children may and may not watch on television. As for the internet, there are many parental control programs both paid and free, available. Are you some sort of communist that expects the nanny state to take over the natural role of the parents?

I'd ask you to support your allegation that "the Liberal/Progressive agenda" has eroded standards of content intended for children, but it's clear that you don't do evidence and facts, preferring to bleat vague malignant soundbites. Nor do I expect that you're capable of providing anything to substantiate your reference to "institutionalized Child Abuse."

The one sensible comment in your post.

Thank you, yakpoo. I will endeavor to keep my responses to you relatively civil for the moment, even though I find some of the things you've written in this thread to be rather hateful. If you know what my username means, you know that I'm not likely to be posting much sweetness and light.

___________________________________

I honestly don't think much of A&E. They cynically suspended the bearded Bible-thumper when he spoke his mind, thinking they were sucking up to their audience. They were mistaken, and as soon as it was clear that their audience is approximately as backward as Mr. "ya'll should be marryin' teenagers," the A&E executive clowns reversed their decision. Their programming is crap, including this show. Robertson elder I think is an honest throwback to 19th century Southern Calvinist values (that's not a compliment), but his sons are a collection of yuppy poseurs.

 

So why post this scandal in this thread? This is the same congressman that brought the Duck Dynasty guy to the SOTU. So much for family values southern style eh?

Report: Video shows Republican congressman kissing staffer

By Wesley Lowery

McAllister celebrates with his family and supporters after winning the 5th Congressional District election 60 percent to 40 percent in November 2013. (Emerald McIntyre/AP)
This story has been updated.
Social Show
A local newspaper is reporting that it has obtained video of freshman Rep. Vance McAllister (R-La.) passionately kissing a member of his staff.
The Ouachita Citizen, based in West Monroe, La., on Monday published surveillance video that it says was from inside McAllister’s district office in Monroe.
The video shows a man, who the newspaper alleges is McAllister but whose face is not clearly identifiable, turning off the lights in a room and then embracing and kissing a woman.
The paper alleges that the woman depicted is a member of his staff.
McAllister, who is married and whose campaign message emphasized his conservative Christian faith, is allegedly shown in a romantic encounter that occurred in December.
The freshman congressman, who has gone to great lengths to solidify his social conservative credentials, is perhaps best known for inviting a member of the politically-controversial television show "Duck Dynasty" as his guest to the State Of the Union address.
Late Monday afternoon, McAllister released this statement:

"There's no doubt I've fallen short and I'm asking for forgiveness. I'm asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve.
Trust is something I know has to be earned whether your a husband, a father, or a congressman. I promise to do everything I can to earn back the trust of everyone I've disappointed.
From day one, I've always tried to be an honest man. I ran for Congress to make a difference and not to just be another politician. I don't want to make a political statement on this, I would just simply like to say that I'm very sorry for what I've done.
While I realize I serve the public, I would appreciate the privacy given to my children as we get through this."​

 

In the interest of being fair and balanced, here's a photo of another duck hunter, only it more like duck gulag, not to be confused with Duck Soup, a movie by some guy named Marx.

 

And now for something actually relevant.

 

In my genuine opinion, I don't really care about other people's marital "indiscretions". I think people create and live in the hell of their own choosing. Where I do have an issue with people like McAllister is when they preach all the "family values" nonsense they themselves do not believe. Apparently, society needs their opinion of family values even if they have no interest in living those values themselves. Just another Right-wing hypocrite to add to the list. Perhaps one day they'll figure out that you can't legislate morality.

 

Comment on the pic in post #84

Is that Fidel Castro on the right!

Comment on L'Emmerdeur question as to what his user name means. Now I might be wrong but I do know it was the title of a French film back in the 70's about a Hitman?

 

What was that about camo and suckin' duck calls?

 

Yes, that is Fidel Castro with photographer Eddie Adams. Eddie Adams was on assignment for the New York Times and convinced Castro to be photographed doing something out of the ordinary, no cigar, no trademark hat, no body guards or crowds in the photo. He was known for doing portraits of famous people posed outside the box.

 

And now for something totally irrelevant........

Since we all live in glass houses let's throw a few rocks. Did Jack Kennedy's lurid affairs make him a lousy president? Didn't all those spreads in Life Magazine with Jack, Jackie, and the kids reek of "family values"? The main difference here is at that time there was a lot more Press than Pavarotti. Now the reverse is true. Does one's personal failings, aka lurid affairs, diminish there ability to make policies and effectively run a government? I would say only to the extent that it cost political capitol providing fuel for small minded individuals to drum up smaller minded individuals into a finger pointing frenzy. Hypocrisy is a human trait. Very few individuals live up to their ideals in every aspect of their lives. I don't expect my leaders to be perfect, but I do expect professional competence. If you are going to judge a politician, judge them on their policies and what they do, not say, not screw, but what they do.

PS; This is coming from a mostly Republican guy who called up his local conservative talk radio station claiming that there was no merit in the Bill Clinton, Paula Jones trial and that it amounted to nothing more than political dumpster diving. See hypocrisy can be a virtue.

 

Look at it this way cjay... If a politician campaigned on some issue that people were very emotional about, let's say abortion, and then got elected and immediately took herself to an abortion clinic and had an abortion because she was just going to be too busy with her new duties to raise a child, but kept fighting abortion as a legislator, would that bother you? I think people tend to want you to walk the talk and not just say what they want to hear even though that is exactly what they tend to do anyway.

 

When it comes to life style issues, I tend to not give much weight to the issues because I see it more as a mater of personal choice as opposed to governmental policies. The bully pulpit can be used to express civic and social ideals, but I think that is as far as it should go. It's interesting that your example centered on abortion and is a great point where social ideals and legislation meet. Personally I wouldn't support your example, primarily because of their policy to ban abortion, and personally because they came to a conclusion that for them it was a viable option. In other words, keep it legal while at the same time move society in a direction where it is no longer desired or needed. Much the same way smoking has been treated. Sex on the campaign trail much like sex in the work place should be discouraged because it does open a person to personal attacks. However, should we hunt down and fire them for an inter-office romance, or pull them aside quietly to warn them on what type of fool they are about to be. Also, the apologies are becoming a bit boiler plate. I would much rather hear; "She was hot. It was mutual and we bonged till the cows came home. My wife who is not behind me, has thrown me out of the house like a dog that has just soiled the carpet. Next issue please......"

 

Sorry double posted

 

Hypocrites live on both sides of the political spectrum.
http://gawker.com/police-say-california-politician-is-also-a-corrupt-arms-1552604892

 

Without even looking at your link. I absolutely agree.

 

Yeah, the "managed" mode these politician go into to save their own bacon regardless of the facts is pretty pathetic. I'm not even sure they care what you and I think but more consider how their political enemies will use the ammunition they just handed out against them. We're so damn used to these losers behaviors that we forget about any incident the next time the same thing happens to another one of them. Their political enemies however, create files, collect sound clips, analyze speeches, and use every means possible to further discredit each other. I'd even feel sorry for this guy but I know that he would do exactly the same thing if he were on the other side. Do you ever get the feeling that the way we select our politicians isn't really producing the best and the brightest?

 

Interesting (sincere). Any ideas on how to change the current process?

 

Absolutely! Take money out of the equation. Everyone agrees that money is the corrupting influence in politics but all we keep doing is making it a bigger problem by equating it with free speech and trashing campaign contribution limits and making contributions less transparent. It's getting worse not better.

 

That sounds great but it's easier said than done. Political parties, unions, PACs, wealthy private donors...they exist to pump money into politcal campaigns. If the campaigns aren't funded how do they get their message out?

 

A simple law that publicly funds candidates at various levels related to the office they are running for would solve the problem overnight. However, then nobody could take office making 60k annually and leave with a net asset valued at over a million dollars 5 years later. Right now politicians literally spend more time fundraising and campaigning than they do working for those that elected them. You would think that if they were genuinely interested in public service rather than lining their own pockets, they would all vote to publicly fund campaigns but I doubt one of them would at this point.